The Equal Remuneration Act of 1976 aims to provide equal pay for equal work for both men and women as mandated by the Indian Constitution. The Act defines remuneration broadly to include basic wages as well as additional payments in cash or kind. It does not apply to laws that provide special treatment to women regarding maternity or retirement terms. Two key court cases are discussed. Garland v British Rail established that travel benefits can constitute pay. Pickstone v Freeman's affirmed that a woman can compare her job to a different man's job when making an equal pay claim.

1. Presented B y;
1) Mayur Khatri

2. EQUAL REMUNERATION ACT, 1976
 The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 aims to
provide for the payment of equal remuneration to
men and women workers and for the prevention of
discrimination, on the ground of sex, against
women in the matter of employment and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto

3. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-seventh Year
of the Republic of India as follow: -
Prefatory Note – Statement of Objects and Reasons. –
Article 39 of Constitution envisages that the State shall
direct its policy, among other things, towards securing
that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and
women.
To give effect to this constitutional provision, the
President promulgated on the 26th. September, 1975, the
Equal Remuneration Ordinance, 1975 so that the
provisions of Article 39 of the Constitution may be
implemented in the year which is being celebrated as the
International Women’s Year. The Ordinance provides for
payment of equal remuneration to men and women
workers for the same work or work of similar nature and
for the prevention of discrimination on grounds of sex.

4.  According to the Act, the term 'remuneration' means "the
basic wage or salary and any additional emoluments
whatsoever payable, either in cash or in kind, to a person
employed in respect of employment or work done in such
employment, if the terms of the contract of
employment, express or implied, were fulfilled". Nothing
in this Act shall apply:- (i) to cases affecting the terms and
conditions of a woman's employment in complying with
the requirements of any law giving special treatment to
women; or (ii) to any special treatment accorded to
women in connection with the birth or expected birth of a
child, or the terms and conditions relating to
retirement, marriage or death or to any provision made in
connection with the retirement, marriage or death.

5. CASES ON: EQUAL REMENURATION
Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd
 Issue: Whether discretionary travel facilities provided by
an employer which continued for male employees after
retirement come within the definition of “pay” under
Article 119 (now article 141).
 Facts: Mrs Garland was employed by British Rail
Engineering. All employees, their spouses and dependent
children were entitled to concessionary travel rates during the
employee’s employment. After retirement, former
employees, male and female, retained their entitlement to
some form of concession. In respect of men
only, concessions continued to apply to spouses and
dependent children. Families of retired
women, however, were not entitled to travel concessions. Mrs
Garland challenged this as discriminatory.

6.  Held (European Court of Justice):
“Pay”, for the purposes of Article 119, comprises
any consideration, whether in cash or in
kind, whether immediate or future, that a worker
receives, albeit indirectly, in respect of his
employment from his employer. In the
circumstances of this case, discretionary travel
concessions were held to amount to pay.

7.  Pickstone v Freeman’s plc
Issue: Whether the Applicant could make a claim based
on equal value in a situation where there was already a
man engaged on like work or work rated as equivalent to
that of the Applicant
Facts: Mrs Pickstone, a Warehouse Operative at Freeman’s
plc, claimed equal pay for work of equal value with a male
colleague who was a Checker Warehouse Operative. There
were other male Warehouse Operatives and female Checker
Warehouse Operatives. The Company argued that, as there
were men doing the same job as Mrs Pickstone, she could not
therefore bring an equal value claim comparing with a different
man.

8.  Held (House of Lords):
In this case, the House of Lords made clear that it is for
the Applicant to choose her comparator, holding that the
Equal Pay Act does not prevent a woman employed on
like work or work rated as equivalent with one man from
claiming that she is employed on work of equal value to
that of another man.